434 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16407911)
21. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
Waheed AA
Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Learning to review.
Freedman R
J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
Törnqvist TE
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
Clarke SP
Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Making sure corrections don't vanish online.
Shim EH; Parekh V
Nature; 2005 Mar; 434(7029):18; discussion 18. PubMed ID: 15744271
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
Cintas P
Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Peer review and refereeing in science.
Lore W
East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Standards for papers on cloning.
Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
Ploegh H
Nature; 2011 Apr; 472(7344):391. PubMed ID: 21525890
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. How do impact factors relate to the real world?
Skórka P
Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6959):661. PubMed ID: 14562076
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
Manske PR
J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Not-so-deep impact.
Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7045):1003-4. PubMed ID: 15973362
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
Connerade JP
Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A look inside the Pharos review process.
Harris ED
Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. CONSORT and beyond.
Blackstone EH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 16872939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
Senturia SD
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
Davies J
Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Innovation, journal reviewers, and journal editors the game is worth the candle.
Popp RL
J Am Coll Cardiol; 2005 Oct; 46(7):1360-1. PubMed ID: 16198856
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
